The Secret Behind China's Economy

[Kiraly]

The Secret Behind China's Economy

Pretty disturbing.

[Naci Sey]

The Secret Behind China's Economy

Pretty disturbing.

Just finished viewing it. Almost brought me to tears, particularly as the woman said there was nothing they could do, no one to turn to.

[Drea]

The Secret Behind China's Economy

Pretty disturbing.

Just finished viewing it. Almost brought me to tears, particularly as the woman said there was nothing they could do, no one to turn to.

I finally got to watch and it's definetly not pretty.

The good thing though, is that there are journalists getting the word out to the rest of the world -- the last thing the Chinese gov't wants is for the rest of the world to know how terrible their human rights are.

They have been very good at "hiding" but in this technological age it's getting harder and harder to keep information under wraps.

[Riverwind]

the last thing the Chinese gov't wants is for the rest of the world to know how terrible their human rights are.

I don't think the Chinese gov't cares what the rest of the world thinks of their human rights record is since they know that no western gov't has the guts to sacrifice its economic interests in order to protect human rights.

What the Chinese government does care about is that Chinese living in China do not see these images. And the Chinese gov't has built up an extremely eloborate and effective technological firewall that keeps its own people ignorant. It also uses it power to ensure that foreign firms like Google cooperate with its mission to keep the Chinese people ignorant

[geoffrey]

The 2008 Olympics is in China, the honest fact is, we don't care about China's civil rights record, Riverwind is right.

And it doesn't make me very happy.

But what are we to do?

[spudbuddy]

No, it's not pretty - that video.

Seems strange that the western world has ignored China for so long...

(of course, it was never easy to get reliable information...that bamboo curtain has proved more

impenetrable than the iron one, in some ways.)

I'm a librarian, and I've only just begun digging up current reading material.

I'd recommend: Jung Chang's "Mao: The untold story"

China's history has a lot to do with where they're at - back even before the Boxer Rebellion, the Opium Wars...

China's relationship with the rest of the planet is an interesting one.

I find it sad that even though I live in a western city with a huge Chinese population, I know precious little

about how these people feel about the land of their ancestry.

I will say this however:

In spite of recent economic developments - China is an extremely volatile society.

Even if 10% of the population were to ever rise into a middle class, consuming by western standards - that alone would represent something in the neighborhood of 130 million people.

This would leave well over one billion people out in the cold - not invited to the party.

How long would they stand for it? I find it highly unlikely they'll just stand on the sidelines and cheer.

It is human nature to want in on the goods, too.

I don't believe the planet has the resources to provide these standards for that many people.

The numbers - are mind-boggling.

I find myself wondering just what China's game plan really is - what they think is actually possible in the long run?

Upon reflection - there almost seems to be (in relationship to the international corporate globalized mindset) - a determination to extract from the Chinese worker - something resembling the wealth assembled in the southern states by using slavery.

Perhaps not quite so blatant - but I've seen photographs of the legions of factory workers, all lined up in their blue uniforms - performing rites in an eerily cultish fashion.

When I was a teenager in high school, I came upon some photographs of Chinese children performing military drills - quite chilling.

Now I wonder - with all the activity going on - western involvement - how long can they keep western influence at bay?

It makes one rather disgusted - by the amount of western consumption of the fruits of all that toil of tears - all that turmoil. However, that has been our pattern for some time now.

A manufacture of goods that do not provide the worker with adequate pay.

It's an old fight, isn't it? (ironic as hell - Jack London and his Iron Heel, followed by his "Yellow Peril."

That Chinese curse folowed us into the future.

We do live in interesting times!

You're just as robbed with the fountain pen

as with the gun, son.

[FTA Lawyer]

The 2008 Olympics is in China, the honest fact is, we don't care about China's civil rights record, Riverwind is right.

And it doesn't make me very happy.

But what are we to do?

Isn't it Confuscious that said "the journey of 1000 miles begins with but a single step" (or something along that line).

Boycott the Olympics, look at where things you buy are made and stop buying Chinese products, boycott Google and Sisco and other companies who appear to be whoring themselves out to the Chinese marketplace, write your local MP, various cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister. Then make an honest effort to convince 10 people to do the same, and ask each of them to convince 10 more people.

It may seem like an exercise in futility, but it takes very little effort on your part, maybe will cost you a couple of hundred bucks a year (paying for items not made by slave labour) and really is the only thing the average person can do to try and improve things for Chinese people like those in the video.

Look at it this way...if 10% of North America's population stopped buying Chinese products, that would actually be enough to get the attention of the Wal-Marts and Targets of the world and if one or two of them dumps Chinese products, that would be enough to make China at least have to re-evaluate their game plan.

Problem is (as you have pointed out), over here things are so bloody good that we are even apathetic when we display our principled outrage...ever notice that people bitch the loudest about gas prices while they top off their 100 litre fuel tank and proceed to accelerate quickly to 130 km/h to cruise down the highway to their favourite leisure activity? If we really cared, we'd consume less gas...the fact that we don't is why the prices are so high.

Similarly, if we (i.e. western democracies as a whole) really cared about China's human rights violations we'd actually make concerted efforts to influence change. Alas, I fear the allure of the fortunes to be made with access to billions of consumers will mean that China's actions will go unquestioned (officially that is) for as long as I'll walk this planet.

FTA

[August1991]

Similarly, if we (i.e. western democracies as a whole) really cared about China's human rights violations we'd actually make concerted efforts to influence change. Alas, I fear the allure of the fortunes to be made with access to billions of consumers will mean that China's actions will go unquestioned (officially that is) for as long as I'll walk this planet.

I think rather that we should send the Chinese our unused fondue sets. Why? The Chinese are poor, and we are rich. The best way to help the Chinese is to give them things that we use but possibly have as a spare.

This thread (and the video that started it ) is entirely based on the crazy premise that our decisions should apply to the Chinese.

It's like Bill Gates telling you to install a third bathroom in your house because he has 26 in his house - and you are obviously impoverished because you don't even have a shower in the basement.

----

The best way to help people in China is to trade with them. This will give them choices, and they are best placed to decide which choice is best for them.

The best way Bill Gates could help you is either to give you cash, or to hire you for something he needs. The last thing thing you want is Bill Gates designing your bathroom.

[FTA Lawyer]

This thread (and the video that started it ) is entirely based on the crazy premise that our decisions should apply to the Chinese.

It's like Bill Gates telling you to install a third bathroom in your house because he has 26 in his house - and you are obviously impoverished because you don't even have a shower in the basement.

----

The best way to help people in China is to trade with them. This will give them choices, and they are best placed to decide which choice is best for them.

The best way Bill Gates could help you is either to give you cash, or to hire you for something he needs. The last thing thing you want is Bill Gates designing your bathroom.

I don't follow what you are trying to say here.

If we value human rights in our society (as our institutions and laws would suggest) do we not need to value all humans' rights (and not just our own)?

That is, I don't want Bill Gates to design me a 3rd bathroom, but if I remove the one that my children use, refuse them access to mine and force them to live in their own feces, I would sure as hell hope Mr. Gates would refuse to sell me a contract to design packaging for Microsoft products. And how will it help my kids for Mr. Gates to give them money or a job if he completely ignores the fact that they are covered in their own feces no matter how much he pays them?

Consider this...what if, as the video showed, the Chinese people have decided that their best choice is a revolution against a corrupt government. On your logic, we should be selling them guns on the black market to "give them choices"...otherwise, they'll get as far as the shovel-weilding villagers did in the video or as "Tankman" did so many years ago.

I'm not saying that the Chinese should have to live exactly as we do, but if basic human rights are not being provided for by the Chinese government, then we have an obligation to address that and not just expand our customer base and derive a benefit from the suffering of others.

FTA

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The best way to help people in China is to trade with them. This will give them choices, and they are best placed to decide which choice is best for them.

I think this is the main point you raise in your post, something FTA may have missed. You claim that 'greed is good', but I say you are mistaken to believe that, by extension, 'greed helps everybody'.

[spudbuddy]

I suppose somewhere down the line when fuel costs make it prohibitive to ship long distances, more manufacturers and retailers will concede that in fact $2/hr to a Mexican instead of $2/day to a Chinese is the way to go.

("Just in time" delivery is no friend of the wind-powered sailing ship.)

Somewhere in Shanghai is a very large model of what they consider the future of their "New York of Asia" to be...an interesting model.

It looks rather like Manhattan - only imagine Manhattan having balooned out to include part of New Jersey, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and throw in Yonkers, New Rochelle and White Plains for good measure. (tens of thousands of skyscrapers and highrises.)

Gigantism is alive and well in the east.

That's a lot of elevators.

Mark Hertsgaard talks a lot about heavy industry in China - and what it's doing to the water and the air.

I suppose that consumers in North America can get all up in arms about human rights issues, and that's not a bad thing.

I think that rising energy costs will one day make this economic model a thing of the past. Sad to think of China squandering its newfound wealth on skyscrapers, freeways, and various other mass-consumption theme parks and entertainments.

Mao apparently really had the hots to rule the world. But that was never intended to benefit the proletariat.

If the race to the bottom creates such misery in so many people - something's got to give, sooner or later.

Same thing with India, really. Corporations can salivate all they want about the prospect of a couple of billion new consumers - but it's still whistling up a pipe. Massive climate changes will slap us up the side of the head in short order.

You're just as robbed with the fountain pen

as with the gun, son.

[August1991]

I don't follow what you are trying to say here.

If we value human rights in our society (as our institutions and laws would suggest) do we not need to value all humans' rights (and not just our own)?

That is, I don't want Bill Gates to design me a 3rd bathroom, but if I remove the one that my children use, refuse them access to mine and force them to live in their own feces, I would sure as hell hope Mr. Gates would refuse to sell me a contract to design packaging for Microsoft products. And how will it help my kids for Mr. Gates to give them money or a job if he completely ignores the fact that they are covered in their own feces no matter how much he pays them?

Consider this...what if, as the video showed, the Chinese people have decided that their best choice is a revolution against a corrupt government. On your logic, we should be selling them guns on the black market to "give them choices"...otherwise, they'll get as far as the shovel-weilding villagers did in the video or as "Tankman" did so many years ago.

I'm not saying that the Chinese should have to live exactly as we do, but if basic human rights are not being provided for by the Chinese government, then we have an obligation to address that and not just expand our customer base and derive a benefit from the suffering of others.

FTA

A British journalist produced that polemical video. I found it to be shoddy journalism because first it didn't show the other side of the story and second it presented the problem through British eyes. (Of course, the Chinese hoped that maybe this journalist will help them.)

IME, China is a country where things are rarely what they seem to be on the surface. I am certain that there's more to this story than what was presented in the video.

----

My point is that we decide things differently from the way people in China decide things for the simple reason that we are far richer. Our choices seem senseless to many Chinese and their choices are just as senseless to us.

I used the examples of a fondue set and Bill Gates' bathrooms because it shows how absurd the idea of a rich person making decisions for a poor person can be. This is what the journalist has done and its absurdity should be apparent.

[Black Dog]

My point is that we decide things differently from the way people in China decide things for the simple reason that we are far richer. Our choices seem senseless to many Chinese and their choices are just as senseless to us.

The Chinese have choices? I remember a time many years ago when a whole bunch of Chinese people tried to excecise choice: a lot ended up dead or disappeared.

This isn't about choice, August: it's about a corrupt, vicious regime that oppresses its people in ways that most tin-pot middle easter dictators can only dream about, a regime that excercises social control in away that makes choice impossible. And a regime that profits greatly from our toleranc eof its crimes.

The best way to help people in China is to trade with them. This will give them choices, and they are best placed to decide which choice is best for them.

Except we don't trade with the Chinese people: we trade with the government.

[FTA Lawyer]

A British journalist produced that polemical video. I found it to be shoddy journalism because first it didn't show the other side of the story and second it presented the problem through British eyes. (Of course, the Chinese hoped that maybe this journalist will help them.)

IME, China is a country where things are rarely what they seem to be on the surface. I am certain that there's more to this story than what was presented in the video.

----

My point is that we decide things differently from the way people in China decide things for the simple reason that we are far richer. Our choices seem senseless to many Chinese and their choices are just as senseless to us.

I used the examples of a fondue set and Bill Gates' bathrooms because it shows how absurd the idea of a rich person making decisions for a poor person can be. This is what the journalist has done and its absurdity should be apparent.

Thanks for the clarification...I really just didn't see where you were going with the analogies.

As for your comments on the journalistic integrity of the video, I'll concede that your criticisms are valid...although some people would argue that the "other side" was told via repeated police officers putting their hands over the camera lens.

That all being said, is it not the point of the video to demonstrate that many in China are being made poor at the whim of and for the benefit of the rich and privileged few? That is to say, granted one cannot assume that our ideals and views will make any sense to a destitute Chinese person, but why are they destitute when the country is apparently riding a booming economy?

If the answer is they are destitute because they are being forced into such states of being (which is the message that I get from the video) by an overzealous government, then doesn't that mean we owe it to them as humans to at least question what is going on in China before we become economic bedfellows?

I don't really have answers, and I pose the questions rhetorically...what I guess I am really saying is that I am concerned that our government may be making decisions on dealing with China strictly on an economic basis and being wilfully blind to the human rights concerns...and that is not Canada's international identity or history.

Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever, but we do them out of a sense of obligation to help those who are not as well off as us...so why take a different approach with China?

FTA

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever

They do make economic sense, but the explanation is that they are not profitable. They are for the 'common good'. Only those that are devoutly capitalist would claim that doing anything for a reason other than turning or increasing profits is nonsensical.

[August1991]

Except we don't trade with the Chinese people: we trade with the government.

No, individual Canadians trade with individual Chinese. Trade can only be between individuals. I'll agree how ever that these trades are subject to controls and restrictions of the Chinese (and Canadian) governments.

The Chinese have choices? I remember a time many years ago when a whole bunch of Chinese people tried to excecise choice: a lot ended up dead or disappeared.

This isn't about choice, August: it's about a corrupt, vicious regime that oppresses its people in ways that most tin-pot middle easter dictators can only dream about, a regime that excercises social control in away that makes choice impossible. And a regime that profits greatly from our toleranc eof its crimes.

I'm not saying that Chinese people have a wide selection of choices available. In the political sphere, I'd say that they had more choices in 1989 than they had in, say, 1974. But this is nothing like the kinds of choices we in Canada have - such as posting freely on this forum.

I think your characterization of the Chinese government is misplaced and exaggerated. For better or worse, the Chinese seem to have chosen since Deng Xiao Ping the confucious Lee Kwan Yew approach to economic development. Market prices with a strict undemocratic State quick to define and protect property rights. The potential for abuse is phenomenal.

The main check on the abuse is the sheer size of China. The regime cannot control in fact the things it wants to control.

... is it not the point of the video to demonstrate that many in China are being made poor at the whim of and for the benefit of the rich and privileged few?

The video showed people losing their apartments in Shanghai (I believe) because the buildings were being razed to make way for newer, taller buildings.

Anyone living in Shanghai is already privileged in the Chinese context. The city government would have probably offered the people housing elsewhere and I suspect that the people didn't want to move 30 kms from the centre. But who knows the true story.

IME, even rapid economic growth is imperceptible to anyone living it. It can only be seen when remembering back 10 years or so. It disrupts people but usually in a positive way; that is, people have to adapt and change but usually once the dust settles, everyone is better off or no worse off. [The introduction of the Internet in Canada offers an analogy to what I mean.] Admittedly, there are sometimes exceptions.

Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever, but we do them out of a sense of obligation to help those who are not as well off as us...so why take a different approach with China?

I don't know what you mean exactly.

I happen to think that the best way to encourage economic development in poor countries is to trade with them.

CIDA does many other things and I question the point of it. Well, when you spend other people's money it's easy to indulge in hare-brained schemes.

I can see the benefit to Canada of peacekeeping and AIDS reserach however.

You claim that 'greed is good', but I say you are mistaken to believe that, by extension, 'greed helps everybody'.

I say that if you exercice your greed in a market transaction by seeking the best deal for yourself, then you benefit inadvertently humanity and your selfish greed is turned into altruistic benevolence.

This is the key insight of Adam Smith but of course ordinary people knew it for thousands of years before Smith.

I suppose somewhere down the line when fuel costs make it prohibitive to ship long distances, more manufacturers and retailers will concede that in fact $2/hr to a Mexican instead of $2/day to a Chinese is the way to go.

Shipping costs are negligeable. I think it costs 10 cents to ship a bottle of Scotch from Scotland to America, and about 50$ to ship a car from Japan. The main costs in trading around the world are in finding a reliable partner.

[FTA Lawyer]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever

They do make economic sense, but the explanation is that they are not profitable. They are for the 'common good'. Only those that are devoutly capitalist would claim that doing anything for a reason other than turning or increasing profits is nonsensical.

I'm not claiming these things are nonsensical...I was actually saying the same thing that you did, but maybe didn't choose the best words. What I meant was that on a strict profit / loss analysis, those programs are all money losers...but as you can see I said that in support of those programs because of the 'common good' that they serve.

FTA

[Black Dog]

I think your characterization of the Chinese government is misplaced and exaggerated. For better or worse, the Chinese seem to have chosen since Deng Xiao Ping the confucious Lee Kwan Yew approach to economic development. Market prices with a strict undemocratic State quick to define and protect property rights. The potential for abuse is phenomenal.

You seem to take for granted that economic prosperity and social/political freedom are inseperable: they are not. In a country the size of China (and this is something you allude to), the vast majority of the population will never see the upside of economic liberalization. Most however, will experience the oppressive power of the state in other ways.

[Michael Hardner]

I say that if you exercice your greed in a market transaction by seeking the best deal for yourself, then you benefit inadvertently humanity and your selfish greed is turned into altruistic benevolence.

This is the key insight of Adam Smith but of course ordinary people knew it for thousands of years before Smith.

Adam smith himself warned against the excesses of the mercantile class.

The assumption in the quote above is that the big things take care of themselves when we have open trade. It's not so simple, though. We have to have a baseline of agreed-upon acceptable behavior that is required in order to be part of the global community. We demand it of individuals within a society, why shouldn't we demand it of nations ?

[August1991]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Most of our international participation in peacekeeping and AIDS research and elections monitoring and other UN initiatives make no economic sense whatsoever

They do make economic sense, but the explanation is that they are not profitable. They are for the 'common good'. Only those that are devoutly capitalist would claim that doing anything for a reason other than turning or increasing profits is nonsensical.

I'm not claiming these things are nonsensical...I was actually saying the same thing that you did, but maybe didn't choose the best words. What I meant was that on a strict profit / loss analysis, those programs are all money losers...but as you can see I said that in support of those programs because of the 'common good' that they serve.

FTA

Let me weigh on this point. On a strict private profit / loss analysis, activities such as AIDS research and peacekeeping may be money losers. But if we broaden the definition of profit and loss, they are probably value creating for people in the world and even value-creating for a small subset of the world: Canadian taxpayers.

[August1991]

I think your characterization of the Chinese government is misplaced and exaggerated. For better or worse, the Chinese seem to have chosen since Deng Xiao Ping the confucious Lee Kwan Yew approach to economic development. Market prices with a strict undemocratic State quick to define and protect property rights. The potential for abuse is phenomenal.

You seem to take for granted that economic prosperity and social/political freedom are inseperable: they are not. In a country the size of China (and this is something you allude to), the vast majority of the population will never see the upside of economic liberalization. Most however, will experience the oppressive power of the state in other ways.

For you BD, I'll recount briefly the long conversation I once had with a Sudanese student on a Yugoslav train. The conversation concerned whether democracy was a necessary condition for economic development. The Sudanese argued that people living in autocratic regimes feel uninvolved and will not make the effort to work. He argued that democracy is critical for economic development, because economic development requires people working. Without a sense of implication in society, without democracy, people won't work harder.

So, to answer your post BD, and the Sudanese, I think ordinary Chinese now see the upside of economic liberalization (or at least see it as a possible lottery winning, rather than as an utter impossibility). Their feelings about the State, politics, democracy have not changed much.

[August1991]

I say that if you exercice your greed in a market transaction by seeking the best deal for yourself, then you benefit inadvertently humanity and your selfish greed is turned into altruistic benevolence.

This is the key insight of Adam Smith but of course ordinary people knew it for thousands of years before Smith.

Adam smith himself warned against the excesses of the mercantile class.

Smith warned about the influence of mercantilists on governments and trade barriers. Is that what you mean?

I say that if you exercice your greed in a market transaction by seeking the best deal for yourself, then you benefit inadvertently humanity and your selfish greed is turned into altruistic benevolence.

This is the key insight of Adam Smith but of course ordinary people knew it for thousands of years before Smith.

The assumption in the quote above is that the big things take care of themselves when we have open trade. It's not so simple, though.

There is no such assumption. The big things don't take care of themselves merely by trade. [i'll agree however that Leftists really must come to grips with how to solve the big things given that only individuals can solve things.]

Smith was merely the first to notice that when greedy people deal in markets with prices, their greed surprisingly leads to general good, and the big things get taken care of. How? Market prices induce cooperation even among the greedy and selfish. And cooperation, as leftists know, is good for society. Smith's insight is unfortunately, like mathematics in general, counter-intuitive.

Furthermore, we don't always have market prices for everything and then individual greed makes a mess of the big things. This further confuses Smith's counter-intuitive insight. Fortunately, for thousands of years, ordinary people without any advanced knowledge of mathematics have seen the practical benefits of markets with prices. Even illiterate people manage to count money.

I put emphasis on the word price - the terms of trade.

We have to have a baseline of agreed-upon acceptable behavior that is required in order to be part of the global community. We demand it of individuals within a society, why shouldn't we demand it of nations ?

Sorry, I don't understand your point. (And sorry for this outrageous thread drift/hijack... )

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I think ordinary Chinese now see the upside of economic liberalization (or at least see it as a possible lottery winning, rather than as an utter impossibility). Their feelings about the State, politics, democracy have not changed much.

The feeling of the state haven't changed much toward the people, either. Isn't a totalitarian regime an example of focused greed?

(And sorry for this outrageous thread drift/hijack... )

Nonsense, you are very close to the point of it all.

[Argus]

IME, China is a country where things are rarely what they seem to be on the surface.

Ahh, the mysterious Oriental!

I am certain that there's more to this story than what was presented in the video.

Why? The video supports numerous reports over a long period of time detailing how the poor and peasants are having their homes and land stolen by wealthy interests in collusion with all-powerful and utterly corrupt governments, police and judiciary.

My point is that we decide things differently from the way people in China decide things for the simple reason that we are far richer. Our choices seem senseless to many Chinese and their choices are just as senseless to us.

Not at all. The Chinese guy chooses not to criticise the government because he'll be beaten and arrested if he does, and possibly sent to a slave labour camp to make cheap t-shirts for Wal-Mart fourteen hours a day.

I understand completely.

[Argus]

I think your characterization of the Chinese government is misplaced and exaggerated. For better or worse, the Chinese seem to have chosen since Deng Xiao Ping the confucious Lee Kwan Yew approach to economic development. Market prices with a strict undemocratic State quick to define and protect property rights. The potential for abuse is phenomenal.

You seem to take for granted that economic prosperity and social/political freedom are inseperable: they are not. In a country the size of China (and this is something you allude to), the vast majority of the population will never see the upside of economic liberalization. Most however, will experience the oppressive power of the state in other ways.

Even if they do see more economic prosperity I fail to see how this will inevitably lead to increased personal liberty and less violation of human rights by an all-powerful state. In as large a state as China, where information is as tightly controlled and the government is so involved in every aspect of life, it is easily possible for people to have nicer houses with TVs and computers and Ipods and still be under the government's thumb.